While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a
privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
- You must reach a Gulch score of 100. You can earn points in the Gulch by posting content, commenting, or by other members voting up your posts.
- You may upgrade to a Galt's Gulch Producer membership to immediately gain these privileges.
Your current Gulch score:
+1
Anything that stops payroll deductions and the necessity of quarterly payments, however, and allows us to choose when to pay those federal taxes, not to mention eliminating those mountains of IRS CRIMINAL regulations, is a good thing.
The very concept of a fair/fairer atrocity is one of the most extreme examples of illogical irrational thinking one can imagine. Either one truly understands Individual freedom and rights or one accepts slavery to the state and those that won't or can't take care of themselves.
The reality is that this is no longer the most free country in the world and bears little resemblance to the one most of us believe we have and as long as it's citizenry accept individual taxation, it never will be.
But what we do have is a philosophy of reality as it is and a mind that can logically, rationally think about the world we live in and assess and determine what we should and shouldn't do in order to survive and improve our lives. Compromising with the wrong/evil/anti-human system only leaves one with no principles, and weakened morality.
'
If this sounds severe, that's life and that's reality. That's how we've wound up in the situation we find ourselves in today. Want to change it, stand up and say NO. Exercise your Right of Resistance. That's what the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment is all about.
'
Where is this progressive?
https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax...
The progressive feature is implemented by a "prebate" which is essentially a zero tax bracket. Check out this explanation from their FAQ:
"Is the FAIRtax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?
Absolutely. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the prebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending."
http://fairtax.org/faq
No. I do not favor this plan. The fact the government issues checks every month erasing peoples tax burden is entirely progressive. And a 30% tax is purely ridiculous.
http://fairtax.org/videos/what-is-the...
No. The Fair tax is hardly fair to the nations producers.
In the end, to me, it seems like a baby-step in the right direction at least.
But: if by "new house" you mean a house you mean to newly occupy, but which already has a present occupant, then you forget: the Fair Tax would not apply to such a house. The Fair Tax applies to new stuff only, never to used. That leaves out existing houses, pre-owned automobiles, second-hand store goods, or anything you would by in a yard/garage/sidewalk sale.
Indeed, I doubt the Fair Tax would even apply to a flipped house. That's a house someone renovates. The only possible way a Fair Tax would apply to a single-family house on a lot someone occupied, might be if the builder had to tear the house down and rebuild on a new foundation. And even then the builder would pay for the new building materials, and the tax would apply to the house but not the land.
The original income tax was simple and claimed to be "fair", too. Why would this addition of a major new national sales tax be any different? All the promises and reassurances from advocates making promises they have no authority to make or keep is the slick sales tactic used in virtually any controversial legislation as they try to avoid the essentials and their consequences in pandering to every conceivable interest group. Once the premise is entrenched they go on from there with divide and conquer.
It isn't "'wonderful" to receive income that you can't use without it being heavily taxed? And it isn't "wonderful" for retirees who have had their savings sacked for decades to suddenly be confronted with government-caused higher prices along with their lower retirement income.
This isn't "fair". It's a shell game packaged as euphoria.
The re-thinking of value for product and looking at outside competition alone will make prices fall precipitously. So, no, your dire predictions are not a given.
Sure, it drives prices up, but without 43% of my salary being deducted before I ever see it between state, federal, and payroll deductions, I am very happy to consider it an option. At least then my taxes are controlled by my spending, and if I need to help a family member out financially or something, I have the flexibility to do that by reducing my spending. Right now, it all goes to support 25% on MediCaid and 33% getting food stamps and Medicare and Social Security that will be long-bankrupt before I ever make a claim.
And if you decide to help out a family member financially, be sure to add enough to cover the "fair tax" that the family member will have to pay.
The only fair way is to place the amount of tax burden on the individual in such a way that he/she can control it.
I'll go through the link when I have a little more time. Maybe in about an hour..thanks
"Also, as registered sellers, they are subject to the possibility of being audited by the state. During such an audit, they will have to produce the invoices for all the “business purchases” that they did not pay sales tax on and will have to be able to show that they were bona fide business expenses. If they cannot prove this, then they will have to pay the taxes that should have been paid when the items were purchased, plus interest and penalties. The probability of being audited will be much greater than it is under the current system with its over 140 million tax filers. Under the FairTax, there will be less than 20 million businesses that will be filing sales tax returns and thus subject to the possibility of being audited. Thus, the probability of tax cheats getting caught will be much greater than it is today, making tax evasion riskier than it is today. Additionally, while the FairTax has much stronger taxpayer rights than does the current tax system, the FairTax legislation provides for a number of fines and penalties for noncompliance. It also authorizes a mechanism for reporting tax cheats and obtaining a reward. An example would be 1-800-TAX-CHET."
http://fairtax.org/faq
This would be a great incentive for someone to start a new small business, don't you think?
The more I learn about the "fair tax", the less I like it. This proposal is far from ready for prime time.
Still not discussed is the the nightmare maze of civil rights threats set up by giving states jurisdiction to go after people with shakedowns anywhere outside of their own borders, which this scheme shares with the internet sales tax expansion agenda. Not having to contend with a maze of different state actions interfering in trade was supposed to have been addressed by the Commerce clause in the Constitution. The kind of aggressive punishment and shakedowns this sets up is even worse.
Now enter the FairTax, the only people who have to file anymore are the people who currently already have to file their sales tax returns to the state (I know not all states, but most). The IRS suddenly doesn't need the personnel it currently has. And, the whole department will, hopefully, be gutted (but with any government, who knows?). Yes, maybe the probability of the sales tax businesses being audited will go up. So? They collect the tax they need, file their returns like they're supposed to, and there should be no problem, right?
Money is security, so no, we do not necessarily earn money ONLY to spend it. You need to look at what is more moral. We will always have a federal tax, as someone else said here "the only certainty is death and taxes". So, is it more moral to tax production or consumption? Yes, yes, we all understand that taxation is punishment that affects behavior. But, it isn't going away EVER. So, which behavior is better for us overall? Stopping work to avoid taxes, or not spending to avoid taxes?
There are reforms in simplification and tax rates that would help, but nothing can substitute for the fundamentals of limited government for the protection of the rights of the individual, resulting in much lower taxes so the mechanisms are not as important. Substituting a shell game campaign claiming a major reform in the name of "fairness" by adding an enormous new national sales tax is worse than a distraction.
Serious people interested in Ayn Rand's ideas should know better than to jump on these anti-intellectual statist band wagon scams.
You get less of something if you tax it. Undeniable TRUTH. So, there IS a morality component to how money is taken "for the greater good". If by spending less, people save more, that is to their benefit and a good thing. If you tax economic activity, you also get less of it BY DESIGN by the Marxists in government. This has also been proven. It's in the Communist Manifesto, by the way. I would think ANYTHING that gets us away from adhering to Marx, everyone who frequents this site would agree with!
And just because the “fair tax” is not Marxist does not mean that it’s an improvement over the current system.
When you stop taxing income BY FORCE, people will keep more of their money. Then people will feel much more prosperous....you can't QUANTIFY that can you? No, you can't. Then people will be able to VOLUNTARILY decide where to make their purchases and pay that tax that was FORCED from them before. Believe me, people still will spend. They have to. They will still need their food and clothing and, after a period of adjustment, they will maybe be more discriminating, but they will buy other goods, too. Everybody likes stuff! We are very much a consumer society. And, if we end up being less so, and start saving more, that's all to the good.
Where is the problem? You keep seeing one that does NOT exist.
You don't understand the difference between choice to purchase something new as opposed to purchasing something used? For one thing you avoid the tax. SO WHERE'S THE FORCE???? Next you avoid depreciation. How about THAT in making people feeling more prosperous? I buy used ALL the time now, have for years, and save a BUNDLE and find things that are actual TREASURES, not new junk from China. It's only a matter of changing your outlook.
I get it. You don't want to see the benefit of it. FINE. I'm tired of this discussion with you going round and round rehashing the same concepts you can't seem to absorb. Have a lovely evening.
I like the idea of taxing imports and sales to US by foreign owned co.s not protectionism but an incentive to get US manufacturing again.
"Is there any provision in the FAIRtax bill to prevent both an income tax and a sales tax?
The short answer is that there is no provision in the FairTax bill (HR 25) that would prevent having a national sales tax and the income tax."
http://fairtax.org/faq
Obamacare was WRITTEN to be unworkable. There's a huge difference between a government takeover of healthcare and a tax plan that allows people to keep their own money and decide when they will pay taxes and not have to file a return every year.
A lot of work to do. The tax code is simply to complex.
Term limits are easy and no lobbying after serving.
Re: “It also gives us the freedom to decide when and how much we want to pay.” Not for most necessities, such as food and gasoline. And rent. From the FAQ: “Service providers are not exempt from the income tax today, and should not be exempt from the Fair Tax. Services now account for well over one-half of the gross domestic product (GDP). Neither consumption of services nor consumption of goods should be tax preferred.”
http://fairtax.org/faq
Re: “It puts the amount of tax you pay to the federal government right there on your receipts. Making people actually see how much they pay the government.” State sales taxes do that now. It doesn’t appear to have much effect.
#2. Is rent a service? I don't have a handle on everything that will and will not be taxed. Still, taxing this way will ensure prices go down as time and competition increases, so there will be much more freedom in that respect. There is also the freedom from the IRS and the compliances costs to be factored.
#3. This is true. Here in California, people still vote against their interest and increase taxes on themselves for these criminals! Luckily most states are not the same as California and New York and will counteract the stupidity of these states when voting on "raise the tax because IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN" idiotic issues. Actually, I think more and more people will start to pay attention if they see how much money they are paying on each receipt. This will increase awareness and, maybe even in California, people will smarten up.
Now this next question might be a bit out-of-scope: how would you effect the voluntary collection? Where lies the incentive to pay for these services? I assume, to begin with, that at the very least, States handle road-building, and agree to connect their roads with those of their neighbors at the border. And at the most, completely private owner-operators build and maintain streets and roads. I myself have come up with three different models of street-and-road operation, one each for residential or industrial streets (the considerations being the same for each), commercial thoroughfares, and long-distance highways.
So how would you incentivize people to pay any amount at all for the police and the military?
We can agree as regards modes of communication, transport, and shipment. I would point out that duties and imposts still fall under the broad category of "taxes," so they are "voluntary" only in that one need not import anything if one wishes to avoid such payments.
Residential and industrial users of streets can form associations to pay to keep them up. Storekeepers can likewise pay to keep up the roads that bring their customers to their own markets. Highway owners can charge tolls. And anyone who runs a firm that insures property can run a fire brigade to provide direct management of risk.
Likewise, litigants, registrants, and other users of the courts can pay fees for whatever services they require. This can include "requests for judicial intervention" to certify the results of arbitrations.
But what incentive has anyone to pay for the police or the military? How does one keep order in a society, the membership of which is not "by invitation only"?
(1) The government would no longer have an excuse to make you tell them all about your wealth, where you got it, and where it is stored.
(2) The marginal tax rate, and with it the disincentive on producing wealth, would be substantially less than now.
But there are even better alternatives. One would be a simple sales tax, with all food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and services exempt (thus amounting to a tax on discretionary spending). No need to annually refund everybody a "living allowance" under that scheme, the exemptions take care of that.
like the Income Tax, except a flat percentage, in-
stead of being progressive like the present income
tax. Although that would at least take away some of the penalty for success, it would still be robbery.
I am against compulsory taxation per se.
It could be replaced (once the government were
cut down to its proper function) by something
like the present sales tax; (and, since nearly
everyone goes to the store, nearly everyone
would have a "stake in society" that some like
to talk about). How could it be voluntary? If a
store were open a certain number of days, and
the owner would not agree to pay his Law En-
forcement Fee, he would be put on notice that
if someone broke into the place and held a gun
on him, it would be no use to call 911, as the
address would be put into the computer as be-
ing a place whose owner had refused to support
the government and police. Also, thugs would
be able to tell which stores were not so protected, as they would not be given the sticker
(something like the present car-inspection stick-
er) to put in the window. (A recalcitrant store-
owner would still be allowed to use a gun for e-
mergency self-defense, but in the case of 3 or
4 thugs, this might not be practical). Also, if
he came to work and found that the store had
been trashed during the night, the police would
not help. So there would be a powerful incentive
to pay.--Also, we could still have lotteries and
court fees.
Still, we don't have a laissez-faire system
now. So, maybe the "Fair Tax" would be better
than the present income tax, for the time being.
The size of government needs to be scaled back to the constitutionally authorized activities. As the Antifederalist papers authors predicted, the "general welfare" statement has been an open door to many unconstitutional elements that have created a bloated parasitic monstrosity.
Letting agencies die off by attrition would reduce the theft, and open the door to restoring the original sources of revenue, with specific fees and tariffs. That would lift the tax burden.
It is far superior to what we have now and could be a stepping stone. One of my favorite features is that it gets the government busy bodies and bean-counters out of my business.
Some of us have posted interesting discussions on this subject over the last few years. Here is a link to my book review (The Fair Tax Book:...) on this site from a couple years ago. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Respectfully,
O.A.
No taxation in a 350 million population nation at the current level of understanding by the citizenry is impossible. Any suggestions?
What I learned is that the FairTax would, all other things being equal, increase the US GDP, by many billions of dollars, simply by reducing the compliance cost of taxpaying.
But all things are not equal! The FairTax would as published, create a far stronger economy. That would allow the US GDP to increase significantly more than the simple savings from lower compliance costs.
Additionally, the FairTax offers the one thing that the Left and the SJWs espouse, it is truly a 'fair' system that allows those who are more capable of carrying a tax burden pick up more of that load, while liberating those who for whatever reason are unable or unwilling to pay into the system avoid taxation altogether -- no implementation of the Income Tax can make that claim.
There are a few things wrong with the proposed version as published. It taxes services, such as professional fees (e.g. Doctor, Lawyer, Musician, etc.) These services should not be taxed anymore than non-pro services like babysitting, dog-walking, parking lot attendant, etc.) I would suggest a STRICT clause that restricts the tax to NEW GOODS for CONSUMPTION and nothing else.
Would adopting the FairTax cause some disruption to the US economy? Yes, in the short term, like ripping the band-aid off a healing wound. We've suffered the wound of the Income Tax for over a century. In less than 60 days under the FairTax, those 410+ fiscal quarters of pain would be on the way to being forgotten.
I did the math, it was an enormous spreadsheet where I analyzed basic commodities like bread & produce, and complex ones like automobiles & housing. In every case the effect of the FairTax would allow the economy to transition with a minimal disruption. The bookkeepers & accountants would be busy for what is essentially a thorough inventory and audit, leading up to the day of the changeover. Following that the businesses would be free to decide how to transition over the next year (if they need that much time before taking advantage of the panoply of other FairTax benefits).
Within a year the only complaint we'll hear will go something like this:
J.Taggart: "Before the FairTax I had all these coupons for 35% off my expense for supplies."
F.D'Anconia: "But have you noticed that the price of those same supplies has declined by 75% from last year?"
J.Taggart: "That's not the point. My coupons aren't worth anything anymore."
F.D'Anconia: "But, you didn't pay anything for those coupons, they cost you nothing. And now you're saving 75% instead of 35%."
By the way, the current fair tax proposal apparently includes rent. A lot of poor families who are currently paying little or no income tax will become homeless because they can't afford a 30% increase in their rent.
You might want to do the math again.
Rent.. sure, why-not? Rent is always just what the market will bear, the landlords would have to suck that up if they can't get the full rent + tax, they would have to lower rents until units fill. Supply & demand determines price. Any landlord used to getting $1200 would take $1000 + the 30% tax or something, instead of 0.
However, I don't think its feasible on rents, there would be millions of landlords having to be setup as tax-collecting entities across 98,000 tax jurisdictions in the US. It would be absurd.
I don't see it as a doable scheme on real estate, there are vast differences by locale. Someone making $100k a year doesn't have to chip in $250,000 on taxes in a single year.
Assuming we are still going to be forced to pay tax, the Fair Tax would allow individuals to pay tax when they want to pay tax. You only pay it when you purchase a NEW item or service. A person could actually choose to not pay ANY federal tax by living off of the fruits of their land and buying only pre-owned merchandise. In this aspect it is somewhat a voluntary tax system. Businesses do not pay tax on any of the wholesale items they purchase. It is only taxed at the consumer level, so even business owners could not have to pay any federal tax if they so choose.
Being self employed, the biggest issue with income tax is knowing I have to pay tax whether I have the money to do it or not. The Fair Tax eliminates that. It makes budgeting, saving, and planning extraordinarily easier. I am all for it.
Re: “It is only taxed at the consumer level, so even business owners could not have to pay any federal tax if they so choose.” How? You can’t eat used food or buy used gasoline at the pump. And the taxation of services makes it nearly impossible to avoid paying federal tax. For business owners and consumers, residential and office rents as well as car and equipment leases would likely be subject to the 30% tax as “services”. You could easily wind up paying more than you were paying in federal income tax. Somebody has to – the “fair tax” proponents claim that their proposal is “revenue neutral”, and the money has to come from somewhere.
Yes, the Fair Tax is supposed to be revenue neutral. There are very few people who would even try to pull off my scenario above to avoid paying any tax, but it is doable. To make up for the hermits who might avoid the tax, the enormous pool of illegals and criminals who do not pay income tax now will be paying tax as they spend their money. Even tourists visiting our country going to Disney Land will now be paying some of our federal tax burden. It simply widens the tax base.
Additionally, illegals will no longer be as large of a burden on our country, due to the fact that they will receive no prebate. They will be paying a much larger percentage of their income in taxes.
"FairTax" is like a cute name for a crappy product. Call a consumption tax what it is.
Like Zenphany wrote, there is no such thing as a fair tax. I prefer it over the IRS, though.
Me dino don't think I'm quite getting what you wrote up there.
If you can cheat the former, you are longer enslaved by the latter.
Haha!
Haven't thought of Mr. Bill in a long time either.
By the way, you and ewv are so adamantly against this, are you both accountants? :-)
As for not worrying about April 15, three words: state income taxes.
"Almost guarantee" is not a sufficient reason to implement the Fair Tax, especially with its numerous flaws detailed elsewhere on this thread.
The states may follow suit since they will get a portion of the FairTax. Have you thought of that? The tide just might turn towards freedom in the states as well.
The "numerous" flaws you keep flogging also ignore the elimination of compliance costs, so I'm not taking any of your argument to heart. Your Master's Degree didn't make any difference in your very human, but suspect insistence on ignoring a key economical element. So, are you an economist for the CBO? Because this is how they quantify new laws for the government....with no proven historical dynamics.
It would mean the IRS is dead and a lot of accountants and tax lawyers would have to learn to be productive. Any such law would have to include a constitutional amendment clearly stating that income tax is unconstitutional and can never be implemented again.
Many years ago I asked Congressman Vic Fazio about the possibilities of a flat tax that had been bantered about in DC. He said it would hurt the building industry because it would do away with the mortgage deduction. I was young and enthusiastic so I immediately responded, "If you tax me at the rate being discussed you can rest assured I'll go out and buy another house." He looked at me like I had three heads and then went on to the next question. True story...
http://bobbiesfairtaxblog.blogspot.co...
If we were going to prioritize, however, here are the taxes I'd much like to see repealed right now:
1) FICA, SS, and Medicare: ie ALL payroll tax deductions. Make people pay the taxes themselves rather than hiding them through automatic deductions. You can bet that if people had to sign a check for these they would be up in arms demanding change. More to the point, these taxes go to support the welfare state and more government spending. They need to be cut off.
2) Corporate "income" taxes. These are nothing more than double taxation - a point that would not have been lost on the Founding Fathers. Corporate income taxes don't get paid by the corporations, but by the higher prices of the products and services offered. Get rid of these and you'd see prices drop dramatically and everyone would be better off.
3) Energy taxes. Repeal all of these. There should be no additional taxes just to use a specific service - especially one as critical as energy.
Do these three and I think you can leave the personal income tax as a fourth or fifth priority.
http://pafairtax.org/resrcs/inclusive...
It's the same amount of dollars, the difference are the words, "inclusive" and "exclusive".
1. “If you are in a withholding bracket of 20% and a 7.65% FICA tax is taken from your wages too, your total Income tax (inclusive) rate would be 27.65% as compared to the 23% inclusive rate under the FairTax.” Isn’t that your marginal income tax rate rather than your total income tax rate? Your total income tax (including FICA), after personal exemption, standard or itemized deductions and taxes paid in lower brackets, would be substantially less.
2. “Save your money, pay your current mortgage, pay tuition bills, buy used goods such as a used car or home, and you pay no tax levy against those dollars spent.” Now I’m really confused. Is tuition not payment for a “service” that will be taxed at the full “fair tax” rate? Your “current mortgage” is exempt, but if you are a renter rather than a homeowner, won’t you be paying an additional 30% on your rent as a “service”?
3. “In order to fund the $3.7 trillion Federal budget, a 23% inclusive consumption levy will be placed on every dollar we spend in the consumer retail market on ALL "end use" NEW goods and services with no exceptions (keeps Government out of the system).” Since “every dollar we spend in the consumer retail market” includes existing state sales taxes, will the “fair tax” include a tax of 30% on the state sales tax itself as well as on the declared retail price of the item or service? If so, I think this should be clearly disclosed. If not, I think the explanation should be more clear regarding this issue.
4. “ . . . you will instead keep 100% of your income and then be asked to give a tax share of it to the Government just a little at a time, . . . “ What does “asked” mean in this context? The word “asked” implies that you have a choice of whether or not to give your “tax share” of the bill to the government. The Democrats often use “asked” in the same manner, as in “The rich will be asked to pay more.” Is this an appropriate use of the word “asked”?
I think the explanation you linked to needs further clarification on these points.
A fair tax will make imported goods cost more than goods manufactured here in the US. This is because the cost of income tax for the employees and the companies is simply added to the cost of the products. This cost will be eliminated resulting in a reduction of 25-30% in the cost of US manufactured goods. Meanwhile imported goods will be more expensive because a 35% tariff will be added to their cost.
A fair tax will be great for our economy.
Also A Galt's Gulch-like community can exist where neighbors reduce their use of money by self-sufficiency and bartering.
The part that is deducted from the employee is only half of the SS & Medicare contribution. Unemployment Insurance is also really a tax, since its paid to the government, and would presumably get scooped up into a reform. It's also extremely expensive these days because people tend to be unemployed for much longer between jobs than the 5 or 6 hours it would take me to find a new job in my youth.
There is also the hidden costs... taxes in various cities and counties on everything from employment to commuter taxes to a tax on parking lot spaces. I doubt much or any of that would go away, but Paychex and ADP make a killing on being the ones responsible to take care of all of that for businesses, to the tune of about $50 / paycheck / pay period.
Unemployment insurance, as I understand it, is a state-level tax that would not go away under the "fair tax". At least I don't see it addressed on their website.
Tariffs as well, presumably, and on the production side, it doesn't cost $50,000 in parts to build a $50,000 car, it's probably $10,000 in parts and some labor, plant, robots, etc. Sure the cost of sale is there and taxed, but its not dramatically so.
i see it like this I suppose, some people are savers, some are spenders. If you have zero in cash and a big credit card bill, its obvious. I tend to save a lot of what I earn and don't really have many bills, and I tend to lease the vehicles - so in my case, I would have a 30% tax on the car lease monthly or whatever ($90 on $300 or whatever), money I save is never taxed, and earnings on savings & investment I would also assume are never taxed since it is a consumption-based thing. If someone wants to buy a yacht, so be it, pay the tax. It would definitely encourage the right activities for long term economic growth - saving and investing, versus spending. Spending might be a short-term boost, but when 65% of Americans can't come up with $400 to fix a power window motor on their car (probably a Mercedes knowing people around here), then what is their retirement going to look like? That $1089 social security check isn't going to cover their lifestyle. At some point, they can't work, do we as a society inherit that stuff?
Right now, I pay 43% (state & federal) on EVERYTHING I make after the standard deductions / mortgage interest, etc., but I've been in my house for 20 years, so that MI deduction is dwindling. I also pay an enormous property tax bill, etc. This is California, they never met a tax they didn't really like. But on a Fair Tax, I'm a bit more in control, if I choose to spend money, it is tacked on and it will ultimately influence the price of the product because other competitors might be able to do something cheaper. It will certainly chase production efficiency, but without business income taxes & such, that might make our businesses more profitable (to be here instead of somewhere else).
I'm not a lover of the idea, I'm open to seeing the details. It's scary to young people I'm sure, but they are always broke anyway. At some point, you have to be an owner of your assets and start transitioning to lowering your income, but spending less. Right now, I (and all others like me) can never get under that taxing our retirement income thing. When you have everything, don't need a new car every 5 years or whatever, you can control what this costs.
Load more comments...